5 guarantee the effectiveness of the eventual decisions on the merits of the petition adopted by the organs of the inter-American system, and (e) In its opinion, “while discussions exist on the possible application of the death penalty to Mr. […] Wing under the jurisdiction of a State over which the organs of the inter-American system have no competence whatsoever, it is admissible, provisionally, to adopt a position that allows his life and personal integrity to be preserved, because any other decision could result in irreparable damage.” Hence, it considered that the requirements of Article 63(2) of the American Convention for the admissibility of this request had been satisfied. 11. The State’s observations in relation to this request for provisional measures, among which it affirmed: (a) In this case, a situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage does not exist, because the extradition process is still being processed before the Peruvian authorities. In this regard, the decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court declaring the extradition admissible is of a consultative nature, because it is the Government that decides on the extradition by means of a supreme decision issued by the Council of Ministers, once the Official Commission on Extraditions and Transfer of Convicted Persons, composed of the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs, have issued a final report. Consequently, this is a political process and it is not anticipated that the extradition is imminent; (b) Peruvian law establishes that, in cases of crimes punishable by the death penalty in the requesting State, the only way in which passive extradition could proceed is if the requesting State offers guarantees that this punishment will not be applied. Hence, an extradition request will be rejected if it is requested for the perpetration of a crime for which the death penalty is established and the requesting State does not guarantee that this punishment will not be applied. In the instant case, in a decision of December 8, 2009, the People’s Supreme Court of China undertook not to impose the death penalty on Sr. Wing, if he is extradited; and there are also two notes from diplomatic representatives, one from the Consul and the other from the Ambassador, giving the same guarantee. Consequently, in the Peruvian State’s opinion, it has adequate and reiterated guarantees that the possible beneficiary will not be sentenced to death; (c) The guarantees of due process established in the Convention have been respected at all times during the extradition process. Mr. Wing has used the mechanisms established by Peru’s domestic laws for the protection of his rights by filing several remedies, some of which were decided in his favor. Moreover, among other procedural guarantees, he has had legal counsel and a translator, and access to the case files. In this regard, it underscored that, two applications for habeas corpus filed by Mr. Wing are still being processed. Also, he can still file an appeal against the declaration of the inadmissibility of the third application for habeas corpus that he filed on February 9, 2010. Consequently, Mr. Wing has been completely free to exercise the mechanisms of constitutional protection provided by the habeas corpus proceedings before the national jurisdiction in order to reclaim his rights that were allegedly violated, and (d) The legal grounds cited by the Commission do not include any reference to the alleged violation of provisions of the conventions of the inter-American or any other system, but merely formulate observations and opinions about inter-State relations